I've been a fan of this board for a while now, but this is my first post. Sorry if this question has been raised before, but I haven't seen it. It's just something I've always been confused about.

As I understand it, the whole "Paul is Dead" rumor started on a college campus in late 1969, then really took off when a Detroit disc jockey talked about it on his show in October of that year, followed by a NYC disc jockey later that month.

Now, one of the most famous (and obvious) "clues" is John's line in Glass Onion, "Here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul." In at least one interview I've read, John said that he added that line in response to all the folks who were scouring the albums and songs for clues that Paul was dead and had been replaced by a double.

But the White Album came out in 1968, a full year before the rumor started and people started looking for clues. So what was John responding to?

Don't get me wrong. I don't for a second believe Paul is dead, and I don't mean to imply that the Beatles really were placing clues in their music. This is just something I've always been confused about, so I thought I'd ask the good folks on this board for help.

John just got his thoughts mixed up probably. My guess is that he wrote the song - just like 'I Am The Walrus' - as a "take that!" to the fans who over-analyze everything, including the whole walrus concept.

I've been a fan of this board for a while now, but this is my first post. Sorry if this question has been raised before, but I haven't seen it. It's just something I've always been confused about.

As I understand it, the whole "Paul is Dead" rumor started on a college campus in late 1969, then really took off when a Detroit disc jockey talked about it on his show in October of that year, followed by a NYC disc jockey later that month.

Now, one of the most famous (and obvious) "clues" is John's line in Glass Onion, "Here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul." In at least one interview I've read, John said that he added that line in response to all the folks who were scouring the albums and songs for clues that Paul was dead and had been replaced by a double.

But the White Album came out in 1968, a full year before the rumor started and people started looking for clues. So what was John responding to?

Don't get me wrong. I don't for a second believe Paul is dead, and I don't mean to imply that the Beatles really were placing clues in their music. This is just something I've always been confused about, so I thought I'd ask the good folks on this board for help.

Thanks for the friendly welcomes. It's fun to actually post on this site after enjoying it as a lurker for so long.

I guess my previous post got me in a mood to think more about this whole rumor thing. (And I agree, it probably is all in the mind.) Has anyone who actually believes the rumor every addressed the following fairly basic questions?

1. After going to quite a bit of effort to create a faux Paul--plastic surgery, cover-ups, presumably lessons to train the imposter to sing and play like Paul--why would the Beatles then go out of their way to place clues that would give the whole thing away? If they thought it was important enough to do it in the first place, whytake such a big chance? And wouldn't Billy Campbell (or Billy Shears, or whoever) say, "Wait a minute, guys, I just went through hell for this. I gave up my whole life to be Paul. Don't blow it for me!" I just don't see the point of the elaborate cover-up, followed by equally elaborate clues to reveal the cover-up.

2. Generally the rumor-supporters say that Faul (there, I've said it) had to undergo a series of surgeries, which is why he looked least like "the real Paul" around the time of Sgt. Pepper. But during that time Paul was regularly seen out and about in London at parties, shows, openings, etc. Did anyone ever notice any scars? They wouldn't heal overnight.

3. Most rumor-supporters say the Beatles agreed to (or initiated) the Paul-replacement to keep the band alive. So why bother to maintain the cover-up after the band broke up? I'm thinking especially of John around 1970-71, when he was at the peak of his Beatles myth busting, his whole "the dream is over" phase, when he also seemed most angry at Paul and didn't mind insulting him. While he was intent on telling people the "reality" of the Beatles in the Lennon Remembers interview, for example, why didn't he say, "Plus, Paul isn't really Paul. That was just another myth."? I guess the really hardcore rumor folks would say he feared he would be killed if he blew the secret. But then we're back to question number 1.

And then there are the obvious issues of, I suppose, either paying off or intimidating: the police at the car crash site, the doctors and nurses who performed the surgeries on Faul, all of Paul's family and friends, all of Faul's family and friends, George Martin, and everyone else who worked with or supported the Beatles. That's a lot of folks, and no one's blabbed after all this time?

Sorry if all of this has been addressed before, but I haven't seen some of these pretty basic issues covered, at least to my knowledge. Most people tend to focus on possible physical differences between Paul and Faul, and of course, the "clues." It's good every once in a while to get back (so to speak) to the roots of the question. I'm also not trying to be antagonistic to people who believe the rumors. If you can answer my questions, I'm very happy to hear it.

I don't suppose it's, "I was killed in a car crash." Or "Hi, my name's Willy"?

But seriously, I'm afraid I don't hear much that's intelligible. The best I can come up with is something like "Shakin' in the band" or *something* "in the band."

Do other folks hear something I'm missing? To be honest, I think a lot of the backward clues and aural clues in general are like Rorschach tests, where the brain is trying to create recognizable order or patterns from something indistinct. Like finding animals or faces in clouds. Having said that, I do agree that the "I was Willy Campbell" line in Gratitude is kind of creepy.